Re: gpe-calendar dependencies
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> A few confusing things in the PTS entry for gpe-calendar and a problem
> with libhandoff:
> 1. gpe-calendar appears to be waiting for libgpevtype0-dev on arm,
> hppa, ia64, m68k and sparc but libgpevtype no longer builds
> libgpevtype0-dev, it builds libgpevtype-dev instead. gpe-calendar 0.90
> depends on libgpevtype-dev, 0.72-3 depended on libgpevtype0-dev.
Yes, I believe this dep-wait was set before libgpevtype-dev was renamed.
Cleared now.
> 2. gpe-calendar has failed to build on i386 through no fault of the
> package - the build log reports libhandoff-dev as not available, yet
> libhandoff is due to enter testing in a couple of days. For some
> reason, libhandoff has not been built on i386, m68k and sparc.
> (Needs-Build). I can't see any reason why libhandoff has not been built
> on these architectures. gpe-calendar 0.90 build-depends on libhandoff
> when gpe-calendar 0.72 did not.
It hadn't built because, as a new package, it has a lower priority in the
queue than previously-built packages. (And I don't see that this heuristic
is wrong here.)
> 3. gpe-calendar PTS entry still show 0.72-3 as the current version and
> lists the RC bug 425093 as a problem in the Testing Status section when
> it was closed 3 days ago when 0.90 was uploaded.
You'd need to talk to the QA team about this. As far as testing status, as
long as there are still gpe-calendar binaries in unstable from 0.72-3, those
bugs will still show up as relevant to testing propagation, and will clear
once the package is current on all archs.
> Do I need to create an RC bug on libhandoff to stop it migrating into
> testing in a couple of days when it is not available on all
> architectures?
Why would you do that? The absence of binaries on some archs doesn't
constitute an RC bug in the binaries for the other archs, or in the source.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: